对 PCR 检测中用于检测 Omicron 变异的拭抹部位进行比较评估

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116577
Tom Fowler , Edward Blandford , David Chapman , Matthias E. Futschik , Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini , Sarah Tunkel , Carolyn Lewis , Alasdair Fellows , Ellie Sheppard , Leanne McCabe , Peter Marks , Paul E. Klapper , Andrew Dodgson , Malur Sudhanva , Mike Kidd , Andy Vail , Susan Hopkins , Tim Peto
{"title":"对 PCR 检测中用于检测 Omicron 变异的拭抹部位进行比较评估","authors":"Tom Fowler ,&nbsp;Edward Blandford ,&nbsp;David Chapman ,&nbsp;Matthias E. Futschik ,&nbsp;Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini ,&nbsp;Sarah Tunkel ,&nbsp;Carolyn Lewis ,&nbsp;Alasdair Fellows ,&nbsp;Ellie Sheppard ,&nbsp;Leanne McCabe ,&nbsp;Peter Marks ,&nbsp;Paul E. Klapper ,&nbsp;Andrew Dodgson ,&nbsp;Malur Sudhanva ,&nbsp;Mike Kidd ,&nbsp;Andy Vail ,&nbsp;Susan Hopkins ,&nbsp;Tim Peto","doi":"10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose only or throat only swabs. Sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was 91 % for nose only and 97 % for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Combined nose and throat swabbing remains the most effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. If a single swab is used, a throat swab has a higher sensitivity than nose swabs, although VC in the throat decreases faster in later infection stages. The variations in VC over time and intra-person variation between sampling sites underscore the complexity of viral dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering both nose and throat samples for comprehensive testing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11329,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease","volume":"111 1","pages":"Article 116577"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of swabbing sites for Omicron variant detection in PCR testing\",\"authors\":\"Tom Fowler ,&nbsp;Edward Blandford ,&nbsp;David Chapman ,&nbsp;Matthias E. Futschik ,&nbsp;Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini ,&nbsp;Sarah Tunkel ,&nbsp;Carolyn Lewis ,&nbsp;Alasdair Fellows ,&nbsp;Ellie Sheppard ,&nbsp;Leanne McCabe ,&nbsp;Peter Marks ,&nbsp;Paul E. Klapper ,&nbsp;Andrew Dodgson ,&nbsp;Malur Sudhanva ,&nbsp;Mike Kidd ,&nbsp;Andy Vail ,&nbsp;Susan Hopkins ,&nbsp;Tim Peto\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116577\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose only or throat only swabs. Sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was 91 % for nose only and 97 % for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Combined nose and throat swabbing remains the most effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. If a single swab is used, a throat swab has a higher sensitivity than nose swabs, although VC in the throat decreases faster in later infection stages. The variations in VC over time and intra-person variation between sampling sites underscore the complexity of viral dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering both nose and throat samples for comprehensive testing.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease\",\"volume\":\"111 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 116577\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889324004024\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889324004024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 SARS-CoV-2 的 Omicron 变体引起了人们对 PCR 检测最佳采样部位的关注,早期迹象表明咽拭子样本比鼻拭子样本更好。我们的研究评估了不同咽拭子部位检测 SARS-CoV-2 的灵敏度。方法在英格兰国家医疗服务系统检测和追踪点接受检测的参与者提供自取样本,包括仅鼻拭子样本、仅咽拭子样本以及鼻咽联合拭子样本,并对这些样本进行实时 PCR 分析。通过 PCR 检测 SARS-CoV-2 的灵敏度,仅鼻拭子为 91%,仅咽喉拭子为 97%。结论鼻拭子和咽拭子联合检测仍是检测 SARS-CoV-2 的最有效方法。结论:鼻拭子和喉拭子联合检测仍是检测 SARS-CoV-2 的最有效方法。如果使用单一拭子,喉拭子的灵敏度要高于鼻拭子,但在感染后期,喉拭子中的 VC 下降得更快。VC 随时间的变化以及不同采样点之间的人内差异突出了病毒动态的复杂性,强调了在进行全面检测时同时考虑鼻腔和咽喉样本的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative evaluation of swabbing sites for Omicron variant detection in PCR testing

Purpose

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites.

Methods

Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR.

Results

Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose only or throat only swabs. Sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was 91 % for nose only and 97 % for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time.

Conclusions

Combined nose and throat swabbing remains the most effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. If a single swab is used, a throat swab has a higher sensitivity than nose swabs, although VC in the throat decreases faster in later infection stages. The variations in VC over time and intra-person variation between sampling sites underscore the complexity of viral dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering both nose and throat samples for comprehensive testing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease keeps you informed of the latest developments in clinical microbiology and the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases. Packed with rigorously peer-reviewed articles and studies in bacteriology, immunology, immunoserology, infectious diseases, mycology, parasitology, and virology, the journal examines new procedures, unusual cases, controversial issues, and important new literature. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease distinguished independent editorial board, consisting of experts from many medical specialties, ensures you extensive and authoritative coverage.
期刊最新文献
Cover 2 - Aims/Scopes, Ed Board Successful treatment of infections caused by mycobacterium abscessus complex following aesthetic procedures: A case series in China Diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for bronchoalveolar lavage diagnostics in patients with lower respiratory tract infections Pseudallescheria boydii infection of the bloodstream system: First reported case from China Anti-biofilm activity of carvacrol-thymoquinone nanocarriers on vulvovaginal candidiasis isolates
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1